Will You Block Ads for Scams?

[freecashspace]

The subject has come up in another thread, and rather than derail that one, I thought I'd start a new one, in the appropriate section of the forum and everything. The thing is, some of the Google ads showing up on the site are for HYIPs and other types of scams. According to the Forum Rules, the promotion of those kinds of sites here is prohibited.

I realise that you have only limited control over what ads Google serves to the site, but would you consider doing whatever you can to stop the advertising of these scams?

Off the top of my head, possible solutions could be:

1) Remove the Adsense code from the site

2) Use the Competitive Ad Filter in your Adsense Setup preferences to block domains used by scam sites

I'm sure there are other possibilities, but those are the ones I've been able to come up with so far.

Cheers,

Wil

[Gertrude]

The subject has come up in another thread, and rather than derail that one, I thought I'd start a new one, in the appropriate section of the forum and everything. The thing is, some of the Google ads showing up on the site are for HYIPs and other types of scams. According to the Forum Rules, the promotion of those kinds of sites here is prohibited.

I realise that you have only limited control over what ads Google serves to the site, but would you consider doing whatever you can to stop the advertising of these scams?

Off the top of my head, possible solutions could be:

1) Remove the Adsense code from the site

2) Use the Competitive Ad Filter in your Adsense Setup preferences to block domains used by scam sites

I'm sure there are other possibilities, but those are the ones I've been able to come up with so far.




Admirable, Wil but now does that mean you accept that it is wrong of Boycott forum to accuse another site of doing exactly the same thing.
I wonder, and as far as I am concerned this subject does not derail the discussion it is what you have accused BGPM of doing.

[halexzo]

Admirable, Wil but now does that mean you accept that it is wrong of Boycott forum to accuse another site of doing exactly the same thing.
I wonder, and as far as I am concerned this subject does not derail the discussion it is what you have accused BGPM of doing.


I agree, in no way has it derailed the discussion, after all, the topic was still about that Site.

And there is another possible solution to be considered,

Dont allow those type of Ads to be used to boycott any Sites. JMO

[Esperanza]

Admirable, Wil but now does that mean you accept that it is wrong of Boycott forum to accuse another site of doing exactly the same thing.
I wonder, and as far as I am concerned this subject does not derail the discussion it is what you have accused BGPM of doing.
I agree, in no way has it derailed the discussion, after all, the topic was still about that Site.

And there is another possible solution to be considered,

Dont allow those type of Ads to be used to boycott any Sites. JMO


Is it really necessary to derail this thread about Adsense on GPTBoycott Forum before it even started, just to continue your feud?


Wil, I have no experience with Adsense but I do with Bidvertiser. Bidvertiser allows publishers to choose and pick which ads they (do not) want to be displayed. Doesn't Adsense have that feature?

[freecashspace]

AFAIK, Adsense doesn't allow publishers to block particular ads, but it does allow you to block ads for particular domains.

Of course the problem with that is that there about a zillion domains that would need to be blocked. But maybe if there were a thread where people could post domains that are hosting scams, and Rob could add those to his list of blocked domains from time to time.

And it would help if people would report those ads to Google. Adwords doesn't have a rule specifically against ponzi scams, but in their Terms and Conditions, they say "Customer shall not advertise anything illegal or engage in any illegal or fraudulent business practice." Since ponzi scams are both illegal and fraudulent, Google might remove the ads. I figure it's worth a shot, anyway.

Cheers,

Wil

[Esperanza]

Not sure if blocking the domains is feasable, just thinking about the number makes me dizzy. Also, everyone with $10 to spare can buy a new domain in minutes. With Adsense ads being contextual every new scam hosting domain would be exposed so there would be no keeping up with them.
Is there no authorisation procedure for Adsense? I'm thinking that if they can refuse or block an ad for the online cookbook for terrorists (I shiver to think what contextual ad that will bring up, paté au bombe?) they can do the same as well for hyip to start with.

[freecashspace]

Believe me, I realise the number of domains involved in scams is huge.

There is some kind of approval process for Adwords ads, but it doesn't seem to be very effective, does it? As I understand it, at least some of the approvals (or rejections) involve an automated process. I don't know how many submitted Adwords ads are approved by a real, live human or human-like person.

So other options in addition to the ones I've listed already could include reporting scam ads to Google whenever we see them, and trying to convince Google to reject more ads for scams so we don't see them in the first place.

I tried several times to report one of the HYIP scams that showed up in an ad here earlier, but I kept getting an error message every time I tried to submit it to Google. :(

Cheers,

Wil

[Gertrude]

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/gertie2007/GPBTtopofpageFeb1.jpg


Isn't Paid To Surf also declared a scam/ponzi and yet it is advertised right here in this forum.

So that's another double standard if boycott are going to accuse others of advertising same. JMO

[freecashspace]

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/gertie2007/GPBTtopofpageFeb1.jpg


Isn't Paid To Surf also declared a scam/ponzi and yet it is advertised right here in this forum.

So that's another double standard if boycott are going to accuse others of advertising same. JMOWhat is it that's being advertised in this forum that you don't like? I looked at your screenshot, but I don't see any Paid to Surf or whatever your talking about.

Cheers,

Wil

[Gertrude]

What is it that's being advertised in this forum that you don't like? I looked at your screenshot, but I don't see any Paid to Surf or whatever your talking about.

Cheers,

Wil


Apology I used the wrong link.

Try these

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/gertie2007/Image2.jpg

bottom middle one.

&

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/gertie2007/Image3.jpg

autosurf

[freecashspace]

Yep, the singapurhyip.com one is a ponzi scam pretending to be an E-Gold game. The other one? Without knowing where the link goes, how could anybody tell if it's a scam or not?

Cheers,

Wil

[Esperanza]

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/gertie2007/GPBTtopofpageFeb1.jpg


Isn't Paid To Surf also declared a scam/ponzi and yet it is advertised right here in this forum.

So that's another double standard if boycott are going to accuse others of advertising same. JMO

The screenshots of ads you have posted are from Google Adsense, which we're discussing already.

[Gertrude]

I have a few more for you Wil.

From some of the pages here on this Forum.

Same rules on two diff pages, one for referral thread and the other, I'm sorry I can't remember.

Due to the questionable legality of the following types of site, their promotion either in posts or signatures, is prohibited at this forum:
Gifting Clubs,
HYIPs,
Ponzi Schemes,
Pyramid Schemes,
Randomizers.

It should be noted that honest discussion of any program is invited and encouraged, it is the promotion of these sites which is not ermitted.


............
Due to the questionable legality of the following types of site, their promotion either in posts or signatures, is prohibited at this forum:
Gifting Clubs,
HYIPs,
Ponzi Schemes,
Pyramid Schemes,
Randomizers.

It should be noted that honest discussion of any program is invited and encouraged, it is the promotion of these sites which is not permitted.
__________________
Taff



- The GPTBoycott Staff -
__________________
<Co-Founder, GPTBoycott.Com> <Submit A Boycott Complaint>
<EmailsForAds - 15 Referral Levels, Proven Payer, GPTBoycott Supporter!>
<TesasTeaMails - Proven Payer, Friendly Owner, GPTBoycott Supporter!>
________________________________________
Last edited by Rob : 05-20-2006 at 14:12.

15 Referral levels isn't that against PP's rules, Those may be old supporters, if they are and still have those ref levels then they should be removed.

http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/gertie2007/Image5.jpg
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/gertie2007/Image6.jpg
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/gertie2007/Image8.jpg
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/gertie2007/Image9.jpg
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/gertie2007/Image10.jpg
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/gertie2007/Image11.jpg
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/gertie2007/Image12.jpg
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/gertie2007/Image13.jpg
http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t228/gertie2007/Image14.jpg


Those are just some of the pages I checked today.

[freecashspace]

Why are these for me, grandma? Do you think any of these sites or ads belong to me? If you have issues with the ads shown on this websites, shouldn't these examples be for him?

15 Referral levels isn't that against PP's rules, Those may be old supporters, if they are and still have those ref levels then they should be removed.Is it? Which rule is it again? If it is, maybe you ought to report that site to Paypal.

Those are just some of the pages I checked today.Wow, that's a lot of links! I didn't look at all of them, but the it looks like quite a few scams are being advertised here through the Adsense ads. I really hope the owner will do something about that. Good work, Gertrude! I don't know how you do it. I visit this forum often, and have for a long time, and I don't see that many scam ads here.

Cheers,

Wil

[freecashspace]

Rob, I think it would be really good if you addressed this issue. I believe there is a valid point being made here. What is advertised on a site does reflect (to some degree) on that website. I realise that you have very limited control over what ads Google serves, but failing to address, or even acknowledge the issue at all, isn't going to help.

As it is, the issue has already prompted reactions such as this one:The PONZI, SCAM AND CLICK FRAUD being perpetrated and PERFORMED at GPTBoycott.com and being PAID FOR SUCH ACTIONS is right on their site and the FRAUD clicks being delivered by the members of those sites that GPTBoycot.com is and did accuse of such. Evidence is a common knowledge of SITES that they were responsible for closing down. Those sites were in direct competition with GPTBoycott for the CLICK FRAUD DOLLAR and GPTBoycott was ans is unwilling to share. That is ONLY a minor prt of GPTBoycott,com's activities.

BGPayMail VERY PROLONGED so called investigation by theose involved in those click FRAUDS, has DELIVERED 1, 27500 CLICKS to GPTBoycott.com. That is just BGPayMail, please do You MATH about how many sites they 'Investigated' in the PAST. So. is GPTBoycott the LILLY WHITE GUARDIAN of the PTR worlds community, or is IT the biggest CLICK AND SCAM FRAUDSTER of all times?
I realise that it's a bit of a rant, and that the poster offers absolutely nothing to back up his accusations. I also realise that it's quite common for a PO whose PTR program has been added to the Boycott or Watch Lists (or even if the program is just being discussed in a forum thread) to attack and throw accusations at GPTBoycott and it's members. But it would be nice if the ads being shown here didn't give them more ammunition, wouldn't it?

Cheers,

Wil

[freecashspace]

Since these accusations were made by the owner of BGPayMail, I was thinking I should comment on them in that thread. But since the accusations have to do with GPTBoycott, maybe this thread is better.

The PONZI, SCAM AND CLICK FRAUD being perpetrated and PERFORMED at GPTBoycott.com and being PAID FOR SUCH ACTIONS is right on their site and the FRAUD clicks being delivered by the members of those sites that GPTBoycot.com is and did accuse of such.I'm sure the owner of BGPayMail can back up his accusation that click fraud is being performed here at GPTBoycott.

Evidence is a common knowledge of SITES that they were responsible for closing down.GPTBoycott is responsible for closing SITES down? Hey, when did this happen? And if GPTBoycott can close SITES down, with all those scams out there, why isn't it closing down a lot more of them?

Again, I'm sure the owner of BGPayMail can name these SITES and provide evidence to prove that GPTBoycott was responsible for closing them down.

Those sites were in direct competition with GPTBoycott for the CLICK FRAUD DOLLAR and GPTBoycott was ans is unwilling to share.It's a bit hard to make sense of any of this, but is the owner of BGPayMail trying to say that the SITES that he claims GPTBoycott is responsible for closing down were the ones earning the CLICK FRAUD DOLLAR? And that GPTBoycott is now trying to close down BGPayMail because BGPayMail and GPTBoycott are in direct competition for the CLICK FRAUD DOLLAR? If so, on the one hand I think it's interesting that the owner of BGPayMail has now admitted that he and his program are involved in click fraud, but I think he should provide evidence to back up his accusation that the owner of GPTBoycott is also involved in click fraud.

BGPayMail VERY PROLONGED so called investigation by theose involved in those click FRAUDS, has DELIVERED 1, 27500 CLICKS to GPTBoycott.com. That is just BGPayMail, please do You MATH about how many sites they 'Investigated' in the PAST. So. is GPTBoycott the LILLY WHITE GUARDIAN of the PTR worlds community, or is IT the biggest CLICK AND SCAM FRAUDSTER of all times?It seems that the owner of BGPayMail is confused about the difference between an investigation by the staff of GPTBoycott and a discussion involving the members of GPTBoycott taking place in a discussion forum.

I'm not sure why it matters so much to the owner of BGPayMail how many times the BGPayMail thread has been viewed. Is he upset that a lot of people might be finding out things about BGPayMail that he would prefer they didn't know? Is he jealous about the amount of traffic? Does he think people are somehow doing something wrong by viewing that or any other thread at this forum?

So. is GPTBoycott the LILLY WHITE GUARDIAN of the PTR worlds community, or is IT the biggest CLICK AND SCAM FRAUDSTER of all times?Um.....how about we go with neither. :p

Cheers,

Wil

[AloraLyric]

15 Referral levels isn't that against PP's rules, Those may be old supporters, if they are and still have those ref levels then they should be removed.

Having more than one referral level does not violate PayPal's rules. What it says is, You may not use PayPal to send or receive payments for any form of multi-level marketing programs (including online payment randomizers), as well as matrix, pyramid and Ponzi schemes, "get rich quick" schemes, “Autosurf” programs, High Yield Investment Programs (HYIP), or other similar ventures.
The "Multi-Level Marketing" section says, Multi-level marketing plans, also known as "network" or "matrix" marketing, include any business in which a person receives proceeds from his or her own sales of goods or services, of recruited members, or any combination thereof. Similarly, PayPal prohibits as a Multi-Level Marketing plan any business in which payouts occur at two or more levels (both by the individual who actually sold the product as well as by the person(s) "upline" that recruited the selling individual).
There is no selling of anything required at EmailsForAds. Referral levels are simply a bonus offered to members. There's a difference.

[freecashspace]

It seems the comments and accusations made by the owner of BGPayMail (although they have now been posted by Halexzo as well, so I'm not sure who is claiming responsibility for them) has encouraged more discussion about GPTBoycott: How I feel about this:
first I think it is very unethical to run the same so called ponzi or fraudclick ads at the so called objective GPTB forum
How can you call BGPM and many other PTR sites a scam and all kind of words I don't dare to repeate here as a Christian
as you does the same thing ?See, this is why I'm saying the ads that are shown here reflects on the entire site. I know it seems like a double-standard, since apparently it isn't considered unethical for PTRs (such as BGPayMail to run these ads, but it's a no-no for GPTBoycott. To me, it's a no-no for everybody.
How can you believe that people will have fate and trust gptb forum to considder as a good site where you can find good information to avoid real scam sites if you don't practice integrity?I agree that people will have more faith in the GPTBoycott site, and consider it a good source of information for helping them to avoid scams if there are no ads for scams on the site itself. But again, I don't understand this seeming double-standard -- if people shouldn't trust GPTBoycott because it has ads for scam sites, then shouldn't the same go for other sites? Including PTRs where the ads are delivered directly from the program rather than through a 3rd party? In other words, if the poster thinks people shouldn't trust GPTBoycott because of the ads for scams, then shouldn't people trust PTR programs like BGPayMail even less?

tirth : I wonder who is getting rich over there by inocent passers -byUm, yeah. Who is getting rich over here??? And who are these innocent passers-by and how do they help you get rich?

Cheers,

Wil

[Merlin2307]

Seems a shame that after some 9 pages of discussion in the Bgpaymail closed thread that the "representatives" and Bill find it so difficult to understand the difference between Direct and indirect(3rd party) marketing. Although I would agree that the google adwords should be adjusted to not show surf and investment type programs that fit the ponzi/pyramid scam definition. It just continues to show how far they will go to stiffle proper discussion. JMO Merlin:alien:

[angel24]

Seems a shame that after some 9 pages of discussion in the Bgpaymail closed thread that the "representatives" and Bill find it so difficult to understand the difference between Direct and indirect(3rd party) marketing. Although I would agree that the google adwords should be adjusted to not show surf and investment type programs that fit the ponzi/pyramid scam definition. It just continues to show how far they will go to stiffle proper discussion. JMO Merlin:alien:

Yes there is a difference, GPTB is the recipient of any money earnt from the ads placed on their site and ARE in control of those ads NOT Google.

It IS the webmaster that CAN and MUST control the contents on his site, including PUBLIC posts, let alone advertising.


As far as I know the money earned at BGPM ARE paid out to members, and the site is NOT reliant on any outside earnings.
But just don't take my word for it, feel free to contact Bill if you wish to confirm.

[halexzo]

Why is BGPM being brought there, when boycott couldn't be discussed in the

the other thread, as per rules?

[freecashspace]

Why is BGPM being brought there, when boycott couldn't be discussed in the other thread, as per rules?
The topic of the thread is the ads here at GPTBoycott. That's what we're talking about. The ads. Here at GPTBoycott. If you don't want to talk about the ads here at GPTBoycott, maybe you shouldn't post in this thread. :)

Cheers,

Wil

[dcwike]

Seems to me wil doesn't quite understand what hale was saying.

See, we cannot discuss or mention in the bgpaymail thread the fact that gptB is providing the same advertisings as what are being claimed as reasons to boycott bgpaymail. Yet, here, wil freely brings in the fact that bgpay advertises the same bad ads that are being advertised here.

If we ARE to only discuss the issue of ads placed in gptB, why is wil bringing in bgpay? Better yet, why is he allowed to do so, and we are not?

Almost everywhere I go, no matter the thread, once he sees that I post, up comes the mention of bgpaymail. Why is that? I don't know about other bgrs, but, it sure seems like wil loves to bash bgpay.

I'm too tired to point out the exact threads, but, all one needs to do is compare the posts I've made against the posts wil made when you click on our names and look up our posts.

And, I STILL believe that no site should should have to succumb to ANYONE nose butting into how they run their program, or what ads they advertise. Not even PP.

And, again, I repeat. Did anyone consider the possibility that the reason for PP AUP is not so much that they care about what a site advertises as it is for "show" to the govt. agencies that they are doing all they can so as not to be involved, even to third third party level, with any potentially sites that may be deemed as fraud?

You see, I think they don't list them because they know they could be held libel if it can be proven by law that a site listed as fraud just may not be fraud at all?

I REALLY don't think PP wants to be bothered by petty reports to them. I think they would prefer to be left alone to do their own job - as they do by random reviews of their clients accounts.

Now, IF, indeed, wil or anyone who is so highy against advertising fraud, THINKS such is fraud, why bother reporting them to agencies that can do nothing but freeze accounts where they are advertised?

Why not report them DIRECTLY to the LEGAL Agencies?

You see, if the legal agencies investigate and deem these reported programs illegal, then, any sites created by them would be obliterated from the internet.

And, if THAT's the case, how, then, could anyone advertise them?

See where I'm going with this?

There would be no need to worry about having to do all that work of blocking domains once a few of those sites reported get convicted and pay fines they can't afford, and sites obliterated.

Crusaders would be doing us ALL a favor if they reported those programs to the right authorities.

Payment processors are just payment processors; PTR is just PTR; and forums are just forums. All they can do is ban - they cannot convict. And, those programs considered fraud will just buy a new domain, and carry on.

Whereas, once a few or more of them are CONVICTED of crime, and punished hard, maybe THAT will be what it takes to stop new ones from forming. And, once obliterated, the owners cannot repeat under another domain? I don't know. But, a huge fine and punishment will surely stop them from trying, I would think.

[freecashspace]

Seems to me wil doesn't quite understand what hale was saying.

See, we cannot discuss or mention in the bgpaymail thread the fact that gptB is providing the same advertisings as what are being claimed as reasons to boycott bgpaymail. Yet, here, wil freely brings in the fact that bgpay advertises the same bad ads that are being advertised here.I did? Where? Got a link? Or a quote? Where did I say that BGPayMail advertises the same ads that are being advertised here? AFAIK, the ads being discussed in this thread are Adsense ads that appear on GPTBoycott. And AFAIK, BGPayMail doesn't have any Adsense ads.

And, I STILL believe that no site should should have to succumb to ANYONE nose butting into how they run their program, or what ads they advertise. Not even PP.So you're opposed to any scrutiny of the ads being served at GPTBoycott? Or any disparaging comments about GPTBoycott or how it's run? Do you believe that nobody has the right to um...butt their nose into what or how or when or why the owners and staff of this site do whatever they want to do?

And, again, I repeat. Did anyone consider the possibility that the reason for PP AUP is not so much that they care about what a site advertises as it is for "show" to the govt. agencies that they are doing all they can so as not to be involved, even to third third party level, with any potentially sites that may be deemed as fraud?Oh, now we're playing the What If? game? What if Paypal doesn't really care what their account holders do, as long as Paypal can't get busted for helping them do it? Sure, I guess that's possible. But What If Paypal really wishes that every single Internet user that sees, or knows of, a Paypal account being used inappropriately would report that account holder to Paypal so they can cancel the account?

What If Paypal wants the law enforcement agencies in the countries where it does business had the will and the resources to investigate and if possible prosecute every person using Paypal to engage in illegal activities?

What If Paypal wants all its account holders to read the AUP and the other rules, and actually follow them, just like they agreed to do when they signed up for the account?

We can play the What If? game all day, but without some explanations from Paypal, we have no way of knowing if any of it's true, do we?

Now, IF, indeed, wil or anyone who is so highy against advertising fraud, THINKS such is fraud, why bother reporting them to agencies that can do nothing but freeze accounts where they are advertised?

Why not report them DIRECTLY to the LEGAL Agencies?How do you people aren't reporting "them" to the LEGAL Agencies? Do you think that every time a criminal is reported to a LEGAL Agency, they're immeditately investigated, arrested, tried, convicted and imprisoned? It doesn't work that way. If it did, there would be no crime.

Crusaders would be doing us ALL a favor if they reported those programs to the right authorities.Wow, that works out pretty good for you, doesn't it? The Crusaders do you the favor of reporting all the scams to the right authorities, and you just keep putting their money in your pocket until they get busted. If they get busted. And again, what makes you think nobody is reporting those programs to the right authorities? Just because you aren't doing it, that doesn't mean nobody is.

Cheers,

Wil

[halexzo]

I do wonder what would happen if someone should ask PP to check the ads on GPTB and GPT.

[trulyfair]

GPTB does not accept DIRECT payment for the ads. The advertiser pays Google to include them in their data bank.

[mlev]

I do wonder what would happen if someone should ask PP to check the ads on GPTB and GPT.

Could you let us know when you get your answer, if they were better at explaining to you the difference between a second and third party ad.

[dcwike]

Read between the lines, mlev.

The politics behind PP's AUP has nothing to do with third party advertising, but, MORE to do with "showing" the Legal Authorities that they are not "being" involved with anything to do with fraud.

PP is doing fine with their own operations of their business - they run their random account reviews, and, that's all that is necessary.

Just as PTR doesn't need crusaders butting in with their operations, PP doesn't need crusaders to do PP's jobs for them.

And, we shouldn't be telling ANY business what they can and can't advertise.

If you don't like what you see advertised, don't look at it or join or use any program that allows them, if it bothers you that much.

[trulyfair]

The politics behind PP's AUP has nothing to do with third party advertising, but, MORE to do with "showing" the Legal Authorities that they are not "being" involved with anything to do with fraud.
Isn't this just your opinion or are you one of PayPal's management team so you have that information first-hand?


And, we shouldn't be telling ANY business what they can and can't advertise.
If one finds the legality of the ad(s) to be doubtful, why not?


If you don't like what you see advertised, don't look at it or join or use any program that allows them, if it bothers you that much.
Again, if it the legality of the advertising is doubtful, why should one sit back and do nothing while people continue to be ripped off? Of course, if one happens to be the one who benefits, I can see why one would find the need to attempt to justify it.

[freecashspace]

Isn't this just your opinion or are you one of PayPal's management team so you have that information first-hand?You'e got to give her points for creativity and imagination though. But not for originality.

I can remember when the Feds shut down 12DailyPro, a bunch of the members were all screaming how it was all some sort of conspiracy. How the government was taking out the autosurfs not because they were ponzi scams but because they were a way for "the little guy" to become financially successful. They even attacked one of the news reporters who broke the story. It was just crazy. I mean, I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy (and I've got the head gear to prove it!), but it's just sad when people start making stuff up to try to justify their participation in all these scams.

Of course, if one happens to be the one who benefits, I can see why one would find the need to attempt to justify it.
And for so many people, that seems to be the bottom line. If it puts a few pennies in their pocket, then just leave it all alone. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Everybody should just mind their own business.

Ain't it funny how everybody's supposed to mind their own business except the people telling everybody to mind their own business? Once again, that works out to be pretty convenient for them, doesn't it?

Cheers,

Wil

[mlev]

Read between the lines, mlev.
which lines, the ones that you put in, or the relevant ones

The politics behind PP's AUP has nothing to do with third party advertising, but, MORE to do with "showing" the Legal Authorities that they are not "being" involved with anything to do with fraud.
even if it would be so, what's the point here

PP is doing fine with their own operations of their business - they run their random account reviews, and, that's all that is necessary.

Just as PTR doesn't need crusaders butting in with their operations, PP doesn't need crusaders to do PP's jobs for them.
That would be like saying the cops don't appreciate info to help them stop illegal/unjust actions. Let them just keep doing random checks on everybody and hope they're lucky

And, we shouldn't be telling ANY business what they can and can't advertise.
advertisement companies have rules/ethics to follow. You knew that, isn't it

If you don't like what you see advertised, don't look at it or join or use any program that allows them, if it bothers you that much.

As for your last point, you just keep demonstrating your wish to protect this program. But to tell someone (again) to basically mind their own business is nothing new. You keep at it, you're doing a great job.

[crframe]

I do wonder what would happen if someone should ask PP to check the ads on GPTB and GPT.

I don't know about anyone else, but that certainly sounds like a threat to me.

The same threat that you made in the BGPM thread, too.

Is this what happens when you don't have any argument to offer? You resort to making threats?

Nice.

Take care,
Cindi2

[halexzo]

GPTB has links to Ponzi scams on GPTB pages.

GPTB suspends members for saying things about GPTB that they don't like.

GPTB are breaking their own TOS by having those Ads on their site.

Why should people like 'GPTB' be allowed to use Paypal's service if they won't follow the rules?

If somebody's breaking Paypal's AUP, why shouldn't they be reported to Paypal? Why should they be allowed to break the rules?

Who gets to decide which ones should be boycotted from Day 1 and which ones can do whatever they like, while anybody who criticizes them in any way is guilty of 'blasphemy'?

Should GPTB be boycotted?

Wil these are your exact words in another thread about A simple PTR, I have just replaced the PTR name with GPTB. If you felt so strongly about what that PTR was doing wrong for those reasons why are you not shouting BOYCOTT GPTB.

You will say this is only a FORUM but in that case why should they lay down the law what gives them that right?

You will also say that is not a reason for boycott GPTB has never boycotted any PTR for advertising ponzi sites so why is that being discussed or why are they allowing it in the other thread. JMO

[halexzo]

I don't know about anyone else, but that certainly sounds like a threat to me.

The same threat that you made in the BGPM thread, too.

Is this what happens when you don't have any argument to offer? You resort to making threats?

Nice.

Take care,
Cindi2



Are you accusing me of making a threat here?What I said was:

I do wonder what would happen if someone should ask PP to check the ads on GPTB and GPT.


You telling me now I am not allowed to wonder?

[freecashspace]

Halexzo, you are more than welcome to boycott GPTBoycott any time you want to. I may decide to boycott GPTBoycott myself. But I haven't made a decision to do that yet.

AFAIK, GPTBoycott does not have links to ponzi scams on GPTBoycott pages. From what I've seen, Google has links to ponzi scams on some GPTBoycott pages. I say some because the links aren't hard-coded. They're contextual, and targeted. Some people see one ad, some people see another.

Do I think there's a difference between ads served directly by the owner of a site and ads served by a 3rd party advertising network? Yes, I do.

Do I think the owner of a website is ultimately responsible for everything that is served from their site? Yes, I do.

Do I think it's OK for the owner of a site to do nothing to stop a 3rd party advertiser from serving ads that are in violation of that site's Terms of Service, or advertising policies, or whatever? No, I don't.

Do I think it's important for the owner of GPTBoycott to take action and deal with these ads that are being served by Google? Yes, I do.

Do I think it's important that Google do more to keep out ads that are against their Terms & Conditions? Yes, I do. And if these sorts of scam ads aren't against Google's T&C, then I think they should be.

Also, I don't believe that GPTBoycott suspends people just for saying things they don't like. If they did, I'd have been suspended and no doubt banned a loooooooong time ago. I'm not saying the staff here are perfect and get it right (and by right I of course mean in complete and total agreement with me! lol) every single time. But unless you can show me an example where a member was suspended on the whim of a staff member, with no evidence that the member broke any rules, I don't think that statement is true.

So those are some of the reasons why I'm not shouting for a boycott of GPTBoycott. Also, if I were to decide to boycott GPTBoycott, it wouldn't really make much sense for me to shout for a boycott here at GPTBoycott, would it?

Cheers,

Wil

[freecashspace]

Are you accusing me of making a threat here?What I said was:

I do wonder what would happen if someone should ask PP to check the ads on GPTB and GPT.

You telling me now I am not allowed to wonder?If she's not accusing you of making a threat, I certainly am.

Cheers,

Wil

[halexzo]

If she's not accusing you of making a threat, I certainly am.

Cheers,

Wil


quoting freecashspace

So basically, Paypal is using a double standard. I wonder if the Supreme Court knows about that???

My guess is that Paypal wouldn't be too thrilled with that sort of thing. If they knew about it.

Were you accused of making a threat?

[freecashspace]

Were you accused of making a threat?I don't know, was I?

Cheers,

Wil

[ianh]

GPTB suspends members for saying things about GPTB that they don't like.






You account was suspended but you were given a time on how long it was suspended for !

Myself and Wil were not, we were just told our accounts have been suspended

[dcwike]

Quote by mlev

That would be like saying the cops don't appreciate info to help them stop illegal/unjust actions. Let them just keep doing random checks on everybody and hope they're lucky

No it wouldn't mlev, because PP isn't a police station. And, their job isn't to fight crime. Their job is to process payments. If you have alligations against crimminal activity, take it to the REAL cops, or legal authorities.

[freecashspace]

No it wouldn't mlev, because PP isn't a police station. And, their job isn't to fight crime. Their job is to process payments. If you have alligations against crimminal activity, take it to the REAL cops, or legal authorities.But not all of the things that are against Paypal's AUP and other rules are illegal. Some of them are just things Paypal doesn't want to be involved in or associated with. Kinda like how ChristianityToday (http://www.christianitytoday.com/) magazine won't accept advertisements for The Church of Satan (http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html) or The Rational Response Squad (http://www.rationalresponders.com/).

CT prefers not to associate itself with Satanists and Atheists. Paypal prefers not to associate itself with people who want to buy and sell porn, guns, tobacco products, etc. even though doing so isn't necessarily against the law.

Cheers,

Wil

[mlev]

Quote by mlev



No it wouldn't mlev, because PP isn't a police station. And, their job isn't to fight crime. Their job is to process payments. If you have alligations against crimminal activity, take it to the REAL cops, or legal authorities.

What is it DC, then why would Paypal need to do random accounts review.
Every respectable company try be pro-active when it comes to legal/ethical issues.
All these companies are doing this for many reasons, and one is to protect their own image, and/or protect their customers, and/or simply because they want to do the right thing.

You know this argument or yours is simply lame, and only serves one purpose.
You got to sit down with your bodies and work on your strategy.

[halexzo]

Myself and Wil were not, we were just told our accounts have been suspended

Both of you were given the reason as to why your Accounts were suspended.

[trulyfair]

Being given a reason for suspension is not the same as being told how long the suspension is going to last.

[Esperanza]

Yes there is a difference, GPTB is the recipient of any money earnt from the ads placed on their site and ARE in control of those ads NOT Google.

It IS the webmaster that CAN and MUST control the contents on his site, including PUBLIC posts, let alone advertising.



GPTB has links to Ponzi scams on GPTB pages.


The concept of third party ads is really, really hard to grasp isn't it? Or is it a matter of not wanting to understand because it's so much more fun to twist and turn facts to discredit others?

[Esperanza]

The politics behind PP's AUP has nothing to do with third party advertising, but, MORE to do with "showing" the Legal Authorities that they are not "being" involved with anything to do with fraud.

Can you back this statement up with facts? I know quite a few people who would like to PayPal to court if this is true. I'm sure the leagal team of your beloved mystic PO would be extremely grateful as well.

[Esperanza]

I don't know about anyone else, but that certainly sounds like a threat to me.
Cindi2

It does to me as well. And why not? After all, GPTB refused to follow orders of BGPaymail to silence the critics of that program like they do in their own forum and the crime of allowing people to exercise their right of free speech can hardly go unpunished.

[Esperanza]

It's amazing how the BGPaymail supporters succeeded in derailing a thread that could have held a meaningful discussion on the problems surrounding third party advertising.
I hope you guys are really proud of yourselves. So is this your new strategy for every new thread in this forum that could potentially go somewhere?

[AloraLyric]

GPTB suspends members for saying things about GPTB that they don't like.
I'd like proof of this, please.

Why is BGPM being brought there, when boycott couldn't be discussed in the the other thread, as per rules?
The first mention of BGPayMail in this thread was Post #2 (http://www.gptboycott.com/forum/showpost.php?p=79556&postcount=2) by Gertrude - and it had nothing to do with this thread.
The next time it was brought up by Wil, who was using examples to show why the ads shown by Google make GPTBoycott look bad. That was very much on-topic.
Having said that, I will ask members to keep BGPayMail out of this thread. There's already a thread for that.

A link to this thread has been posted in the mod folder, but Rob hasn't been here yet to look over it. I don't have an account with Google (and I do not have access to Rob's account, for the record), but if it's true you can block domains, it'd be helpful if you guys could post the ads that are ponzi's, scams, etc. that need to be blocked.

[dcwike]

The concept of third party ads is really, really hard to grasp isn't it? Or is it a matter of not wanting to understand because it's so much more fun to twist and turn facts to discredit others?

If, on one hand, you say the above about third party ads, and, on the other hand, wil says the below, could THAT help YOU understand where "we" are coming from? :

But not all of the things that are against Paypal's AUP and other rules are illegal. Some of them are just things Paypal doesn't want to be involved in or associated with. Kinda like how ChristianityToday magazine won't accept advertisements for The Church of Satan or The Rational Response Squad.

CT prefers not to associate itself with Satanists and Atheists. Paypal prefers not to associate itself with people who want to buy and sell porn, guns, tobacco products, etc. even though doing so isn't necessarily against the law.


It's NEITHER a matter of misunderstanding OR your ASSUMPTION that "we" are trying to twist things around.

The fact is, (IF what wil and mlev say of PP is true), if PP does not want to "associate" itself, with even by third party ads of that nature, shown on any site that uses their services, then it is up to the site to comply with those policies of PP AUP.

So, it doesn't matter if ads of that nature are direct, indirect, first party, third party. If an ad of such nature is even SEEN on a site associating with PP, it's against their AUP, and the site that allows such, even by third party, risks losing their account with PP.

Now, wil, since you started this thread, can't you see where this is going?

Now, you even say:

Paypal prefers not to associate itself with people who want to buy and sell porn, guns, tobacco products, etc. even though doing so isn't necessarily against the law.

Who are you going to aim your next discussion against - e-Bay? :laugh:

First you want to tell PTR owners what they can and can't advertise; now it's the very forum you use for your crusades. Why wouldn't your next move be e-Bay? After all, they use PP as one of their methods of payment, too, right?

Yes, the scam is out there, wil, and it IS wrong for people to use the internet to commit fraud, but, you are fighting a losing battle and going after the wrong people.

Perhaps, since you are so well educated on the subject of scam and ponzi, you might redirect your path into using your intelligence to EDUCATE people of what to look out for when they see ads of that nature?

Rather than going after businesses that advertise those ads, go after the people who are vulnerable to them and TEACH them what to look for in advertising to being scammed and ripped off.

The way I see you going about it now is that you want to rule over everyone's business affairs from PTR to Search Engines, to Forums - and, all that does is create a negative caos.

Here would be the IDEAL place to DO that, wil - to help people LEARN how to avoid the ponzi scams and the hyip rip offs, that are found everywhere on the Internet. I even think the admin of this forum would very much appreciate that. :)

Edited to add that I don't mean this thread, but, perhaps gptB would give you a corner of your own to start lessons on how to avoid the scam of ponzis, and such?

[halexzo]

quoting freecashspace

Another way to do it (which might come in handy if you don't have dozens or hundreds of advertisers buying search ads) is to find some way to get your members to do a lot of searches, and then rewarding them for doing them.

(I quoted this from the other thread so I dont violate the Forum rules, while addressing the Ads shown on this Site.)

Well Wil,another simple way (if one so chooses) to accomplish this is to set up a site that pretends to help members of, say, PTR Industry, pick up all sites and accuse them of being a Ponzi, Scam, HYIP, Matrix, Surf, or whatever Industry fitting,and the membership WILL come to visit Your site.
Then put Your own ads on the site and let the people click and whoever owns that Site, pocket the profits without paying anyone a dime.
And 'they' are a Guardian that the puplic will trust.

In this case, GPTB is pocketting those 'fraud click' payments.

BGPM is paying it's Members and DOES NOT receive direct payments from
any search engines.All profits or payments are between the advertisers
and their respective owners.

quoting freecashspace
Ponzi scams are immoral, whether or not the owners and promoters are caught and found guilty of a crime.I believe that publishing ads, whether on a website or in an email, for sites doing those sorts of things is immoral as well.

GPTBoycott IS accepting AND receiving DIRECT payments for the advertising shown on the site.Ponzi, Scam, Autosurf, HYIP.JMO

BGPM IJMO, since its opening did and does operate under common business ethics. Does GPTBoycott?

[Taff]

In this case, GPTB is pocketting those 'fraud click' payments.



Please would you explain the above to me so I can understand it.
Could you show me or quote to me anywhere on the GPTBoycott
forum where members are asked to click on any advertising.

Originally Posted by halexzo
GPTB suspends members for saying things about GPTB that they don't like.


Also if you could explain the above

[ianh]

BGPM IJMO, since its opening did and does operate under common business ethics. Does GPTBoycott?



What are those ethics


pay the select few without request
forget to pay until absolutely necessary
hand out members info to other members
ridicule members to other members in member base


I sure bet all are happy with those ethics

[trulyfair]

GPTBoycott IS accepting AND receiving DIRECT payments for the advertising shown on the site.Ponzi, Scam, Autosurf, HYIP.JMO
The ads being discussed are from Google. The advertiser places the ads with Google and payment is made to Google. GPTBoycott does NOT accept direct payment for the placement of those ads.

[halexzo]

I'd like proof of this, please.



My apology for that, my error.

[halexzo]

Please would you explain the above to me so I can understand it.
Could you show me or quote to me anywhere on the GPTBoycott
forum where members are asked to click on any advertising.


I dont think those type of Ads, or any type of Ads, are placed on any Site, unless the Site Owner is paid for those, or at least part of it, if anyone would click on them.So yes,if that is the case, Boycott would benefit from it.

And no, nobody is 'asked' to click on those, I did not stated so.

[dcwike]

The ads being discussed are from Google. The advertiser places the ads with Google and payment is made to Google. GPTBoycott does NOT accept direct payment for the placement of those ads.

No, gptB does not accept payment for the placement of ads in the ad sence ads, but, they DO accept payment from the advertiser who purchases ad sense ads that are place in it's forum.

The only way gptB would benefit from any searches conducted through the ad sense ads is if the owner(s) of gptB were the affiliate who placed the ad sense ad on the forum.

However, I don't think this is the topic of this discussion. The topic is whether or not it is ethical for this forum to accept advertising, either directly or indirectly (third party) for what could be considered scam or fraud.

Wil seems to think such ads are unethical. I do not.

Advertising, in my opinion, is advertising, and, to me, it is acceptable for a PO to allow what they deem as acceptable advertising to them.

I don't think it's any of our business WHAT a business advertises, so long as I am happy with what the site offers to us. The advertisements are a means of income to pay operating costs to run the site. If we don't like what is being advertised, we can ignore them and not click on that link.

Why gripe about the ads when ads have nothing to do with what this program offers? Do we have to look at an ad or click a link before we can post?

Same with PTR. No one is forced to do anything they don't want to. If one sees a link to a site that offends them, don't click on the ad link. And, if those are the only kinds of ads sent, then, there's the choice to unsubscribe from that site.

But, as long as the advertisement being advertised has not been legally convicted of fraud, by rule of free enterprise, such ads can be accepted as normal business ethics.

By rights, if I own a site, it is at MY descretion what I allow and not allow to be advertised - NOT my members. And, ANY member who does not LIKE what I advertise has the freedom to either disregard them or cancel their membership.

And, I really don't think it's the ethics of the advertising that is the cause for PP's rules stated in their AUP. I honestly think it's a "show" to the legal authorities that they are attempting to "mend" their ways after having their hands slapped.

And, I really don't think PP wants any help from crusaders to knock down a site that is violating their AUP. They are big business and know what they are doing, without any outside help.

[dcwike]

What is it DC, then why would Paypal need to do random accounts review.
Every respectable company try be pro-active when it comes to legal/ethical issues.
All these companies are doing this for many reasons, and one is to protect their own image, and/or protect their customers, and/or simply because they want to do the right thing.

You know this argument or yours is simply lame, and only serves one purpose.
You got to sit down with your bodies and work on your strategy.

But, of course they would do random account reviews, for the very purpose you say: "to protect their own image" in the eyes of the same legal system that slapped their hands.

It's called being "Politically Correct in a Diplomatic way." And we all KNOW how that works, do we not?

[freecashspace]

The fact is, (IF what wil and mlev say of PP is true), if PP does not want to "associate" itself, with even by third party ads of that nature, shown on any site that uses their services, then it is up to the site to comply with those policies of PP AUP.

So, it doesn't matter if ads of that nature are direct, indirect, first party, third party. If an ad of such nature is even SEEN on a site associating with PP, it's against their AUP, and the site that allows such, even by third party, risks losing their account with PP.I don't believe I ever said this was a fact. If you know of an instance where I did, could you let me know so I can go back and edit the post so I don't confuse others?

What I said (or think I said) was that at least one Program Owner has claimed that they lost their Paypal account because of 3rd party ads. I can't discount the possibility that the PO misunderstood why their account was frozen, or that the PO was deliberately lying. As I said at the time, if that's really what happened, it's a harsh way for Paypal to deal with their account holders. But as I also said at the time, if Paypal is suspending and closing accounts because of third party advertising, it's something that all webmasters need to be aware of, if they accept Paypal payments on the site. I would think the smart thing for those webmasters to do is contact Paypal and ask if 3rd party ads are a potential problem.

Cheers,

Wil

[trulyfair]

No, gptB does not accept payment for the placement of ads in the ad sence ads, but, they DO accept payment from the advertiser who purchases ad sense ads that are place in it's forum.
Any payment to GPTB would be made by Google Adsense.

The only way gptB would benefit from any searches conducted through the ad sense ads is if the owner(s) of gptB were the affiliate who placed the ad sense ad on the forum.
What searches are you referring to? I have not seen any search engines advertised through the Google Adsense ads. :\


However, I don't think this is the topic of this discussion. The topic is whether or not it is ethical for this forum to accept advertising, either directly or indirectly (third party) for what could be considered scam or fraud.
My post was in response was to halexzo. ;)



I don't think it's any of our business WHAT a business advertises, so long as I am happy with what the site offers to us. The advertisements are a means of income to pay operating costs to run the site. If we don't like what is being advertised, we can ignore them and not click on that link.

Why gripe about the ads when ads have nothing to do with what this program offers? Do we have to look at an ad or click a link before we can post?

Same with PTR. No one is forced to do anything they don't want to. If one sees a link to a site that offends them, don't click on the ad link. And, if those are the only kinds of ads sent, then, there's the choice to unsubscribe from that site.

But, as long as the advertisement being advertised has not been legally convicted of fraud, by rule of free enterprise, such ads can be accepted as normal business ethics.
As I have said before, you may not care what is advertised, others do.

[freecashspace]

Who are you going to aim your next discussion against - e-Bay?

First you want to tell PTR owners what they can and can't advertise; now it's the very forum you use for your crusades. Why wouldn't your next move be e-Bay? After all, they use PP as one of their methods of payment, too, right?For somebody who seems to think the world would be a much better place if everybody just minded their own business you sure do like telling other people what you think they should and should not be doing, don't you?

Why would you care if I wanted to have a discussion about eBay? Haven't you posted over and over again that you think the way Paypal conducts its business is wrong? Haven't you suggested that the PTR industry should find another payment processor rather than rely on Paypal? So why would it be an issue for you if I wanted to discuss eBay?

Yes, the scam is out there, wil, and it IS wrong for people to use the internet to commit fraud, but, you are fighting a losing battle and going after the wrong people.Thanks for sharing your opinions about my battles and whether or not you approve of who I am or am not "going after." I promise I'll give it all the consideration it deserves.

Perhaps, since you are so well educated on the subject of scam and ponzi, you might redirect your path into using your intelligence to EDUCATE people of what to look out for when they see ads of that nature?Been there, done that. But again, thanks for the advice. Do you want me to return the favor and tell you how I think you should spend your time and energy?

Cheers,

Wil

[mlev]

But, of course they would do random account reviews, for the very purpose you say: "to protect their own image" in the eyes of the same legal system that slapped their hands.

It's called being "Politically Correct in a Diplomatic way." And we all KNOW how that works, do we not?

I think I see what you mean.

everybody minds their own business, turn their head away.

That must explain why BG had their account cancelled.

Yep, makes sense. Has to be the "Politically Correct in a Diplomatic way."
I see how it works now !

[freecashspace]

However, I don't think this is the topic of this discussion. The topic is whether or not it is ethical for this forum to accept advertising, either directly or indirectly (third party) for what could be considered scam or fraud.

Wil seems to think such ads are unethical. I do not.

Advertising, in my opinion, is advertising, and, to me, it is acceptable for a PO to allow what they deem as acceptable advertising to them.I thought that at least one aspect of the topic of this discussion is that the PO (Rob) does not consider ads for or the promotion of ponzi scams acceptable. That's why there's a rule here that says there's to be no promotion of ponzi scams.

I think that it's a good rule, and that's why it would be good if the site didn't have ads for ponzi scams on it.

Cheers,

Wil

[freecashspace]

it'd be helpful if you guys could post the ads that are ponzi's, scams, etc. that need to be blocked.Good idea, Alora. Do you want us to post them here in this thread, or would it be better to have a separate thread specifically for that purpose?

Cheers,

Wil

[crframe]

It does to me as well. And why not? After all, GPTB refused to follow orders of BGPaymail to silence the critics of that program like they do in their own forum and the crime of allowing people to exercise their right of free speech can hardly go unpunished.

You summed it up pretty much exactly!

It just really disturbs me to see that a forum that was opened in the interest of aiding people in making informed decisions and helping people avoid being burned by bad sites is being threatened because a particular PO is doing something wrong, being called on it, and doesn't like it, and sending his supporters to make threats against the forum that is helping people.

I definitely agree that the ads being served by Google sound like they aren't appropriate for the aims of this forum, but even in that, we were asked that if we saw any (and since I still haven't gotten around to unblocking adsense, I'm not seeing the ads myself) to please list the inappropriate ads so that they could be checked into and dealt with. That sounds like common sense and good advice to me.

Of course having ads for scams on a forum that was started to fight scams is odd, but, based on other peoples' experience with having Adsense, it doesn't sound like a webmaster has a whole lot of control over what is shown through adsense. Even blocking specific domains is a nice start, but in reality, for every 1 that is blocked, there are another 25 to take its place.

So, I can only guess that it IS an intimidation tactic to threaten the owner of this forum with running to paypal over the ads that google is serving here.

Having them allowed is something worth discussing, but a solution was offered and it sure sounds like attempts to rectify the issue will be looked into and likely made. Maybe it's just me, but I thought that was a pretty logical approach to a resolution.

It is just too bad that some would like to take the good that this forum can do, and the help that the members can offer each other here, and try to destroy that with threats of running to paypal because they don't like that their favorite PO is being called on directly running the same type ads.

Anyway, I do agree with your assessment and think that you hit the nail on the head!
Take care,
Cindi2

[AloraLyric]

Good idea, Alora. Do you want us to post them here in this thread, or would it be better to have a separate thread specifically for that purpose?

Cheers,

Wil

I think a separate thread created specifically for that would be better. Otherwise, they'll get lost in the discussion.

[freecashspace]

Excellent! I'll start a new one right away.

ETA: According to a post at Caydel's SEO Blog (http://www.caydel.com/google-is-beta-testing-keyword-based-ad-filtering/), Google is currently beta-testing a keyword-based filter. That would mean ads corresponding to certain keywords (input by the Adsense account holder) could be filtered out, rather than filtering by domains. That could make this process (assuming that Rob is willing to implement it) a lot simpler.

Cheers,

Wil

[AloraLyric]

Excellent! I'll start a new right away.
Made the thread a sticky to make it easier for members to post in (and for Rob to find it).

ETA: According to a post at Caydel's SEO Blog (http://www.caydel.com/google-is-beta-testing-keyword-based-ad-filtering/), Google is currently beta-testing a keyword-based filter. That would mean ads corresponding to certain keywords (input by the Adsense account holder) could be filtered out, rather than filtering by domains. That could make this process (assuming that Rob is willing to implement it) a lot simpler.

That would be great! I hope they implement this feature soon...

[animekenji]

The subject has come up in another thread, and rather than derail that one, I thought I'd start a new one, in the appropriate section of the forum and everything. The thing is, some of the Google ads showing up on the site are for HYIPs and other types of scams. According to the Forum Rules, the promotion of those kinds of sites here is prohibited.

I realise that you have only limited control over what ads Google serves to the site, but would you consider doing whatever you can to stop the advertising of these scams?

Off the top of my head, possible solutions could be:

1) Remove the Adsense code from the site

2) Use the Competitive Ad Filter in your Adsense Setup preferences to block domains used by scam sites

I'm sure there are other possibilities, but those are the ones I've been able to come up with so far.

Cheers,

Wil

The problem with Google, Yahoo and Overture ads is that they are contextual. The ads that appear relate to the text on the page they appear on. If someone posts a thread with the words "HYIP" or "autosurf" in the title, then that will trigger ads containing those words to appear on the site. The only way to block them from appearing is to forbid members from using those words on the site or unless there is some way to turn off the offending keywords that determine what ads appear.

[freecashspace]

The problem with Google, Yahoo and Overture ads is that they are contextual. The ads that appear relate to the text on the page they appear on. If someone posts a thread with the words "HYIP" or "autosurf" in the title, then that will trigger ads containing those words to appear on the site. The only way to block them from appearing is to forbid members from using those words on the site or unless there is some way to turn off the offending keywords that determine what ads appear.Yes, we know that the ads are contextual. I suppose they could set up the word censor to deal with inappropriate keywords, but that could end up making it hard to have any kind of meaningful discussion. AFAIK, Google doesn't let Adsense publishers filter according to keyword, but they're beta-testing it now.

In any case, whether keywords or domains are filtered to try to get rid of inappropriate ads, it's going to take Rob, the owner of the site, to actually do something about them. And so far, we've heard absolutely nothing from him.

Cheers,

Wil

[vinod]

15 referral levels is certainly against the rules of Pay Pal. Otherwise, I feel that 'E Mails for Ads' is a good site. Can't they be asked to change the referral levels, to the ones permitted by PP i.e. up to 2?

[trulyfair]

The referral levels were explained here (http://www.gptboycott.com/forum/showpost.php?p=79935&postcount=17).

Having more than one referral level does not violate PayPal's rules. What it says is,

You may not use PayPal to send or receive payments for any form of multi-level marketing programs (including online payment randomizers), as well as matrix, pyramid and Ponzi schemes, "get rich quick" schemes, “Autosurf” programs, High Yield Investment Programs (HYIP), or other similar ventures.

The "Multi-Level Marketing" section says,

Multi-level marketing plans, also known as "network" or "matrix" marketing, include any business in which a person receives proceeds from his or her own sales of goods or services, of recruited members, or any combination thereof. Similarly, PayPal prohibits as a Multi-Level Marketing plan any business in which payouts occur at two or more levels (both by the individual who actually sold the product as well as by the person(s) "upline" that recruited the selling individual).

There is no selling of anything required at EmailsForAds. Referral levels are simply a bonus offered to members. There's a difference.